total agreement, that chick should be barred from gun ownership if she is willing to shoot/kill a worker over a smart meter. She is the reason we indeed need better restrictions on who deserves to own a gun.

JustAlex

08-07-2012, 03:54 PM

The majority of Americans don't agree that handguns should be banned.....

It doesn't matter though.....America has a gun culture that when someone flips out, he can very easily obtain a gun and kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.

The U.S continues to be a Joke to the rest of the first world.

We kill ourselves senselessly and instead of doing something....ANYTHING, we argue and argue but the status quo stays the same.

It's funny, I personally said that it won't be long until the next Mass shooting occurs after the Colorado incident.

I'm going to say it AGAIN!

It won't be long until the next mass shooting occurs after the Sikh Temple incident....

duane1969

08-07-2012, 04:16 PM

I guess I see things a bit differently. <br />
<br />
1) The old guy was shooting at kids with baseball bats. Unless they were assaulting someone that I didn't see, that is overkill in my opinion. I would never...

mrveggieman

08-07-2012, 04:27 PM

I guess I see things a bit differently.

Alex this is dirctly at your "rest of the world" comment. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks of me or my country. The rest of the world does NOTHING to contribute to the safety of my country or my family. Sitting around worrying about what people who could care less about me think of me is the absolute last thing I will ever do. Quite frankly, I don't even care what my neighbors think about my gun ownership, so you can imagine what I feel about people in Europe or other countries think.

Just Alex me and you are cool but I have to give duane some for this:

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 04:27 PM

Duane, I'm just going to point out that Canada was on your side through the entire old war and provided a nice buffer from the USSR. I think you have a limited view of who does what for whom. There are other examples, probably betted than that, but there you go.

duane1969

08-07-2012, 04:52 PM

Duane, I'm just going to point out that Canada was on your side through the entire old war and provided a nice buffer from the USSR. I think you have a limited view of who does what for whom. There are other examples, probably betted than that, but there you go.

And that has what to do with me caring what people in other countries think of my gun ownership rights? Canada has benefitted just as much (and in my opinion, more) from it's friendship with the U.S in regards to military symbiosis, I see no reason why Canada's pacifist mentality should dictate my life choices.

shrewsbury

08-07-2012, 05:53 PM

duane, one had a gun and the other a bat, and if you look closely, you will see the guy with the bat threatened to swing on someone right after he enters.

I think it was underkill, they should have been shot dead. now after they are released from prison, they will do it again, and be ready for someone carrying a gun.

and i base that on the amount of reoffenders, not race or anything else

pspstatus

08-07-2012, 06:32 PM

I think if anything people have more of a problem with assault rifles than handguns.

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 06:35 PM

And that has what to do with me caring what people in other countries think of my gun ownership rights?
Nothing. It has a lot to do, however, with your claim that no one has helped the US with their own security. That was a false statement.

Canada has benefitted just as much (and in my opinion, more) from it's friendship with the U.S in regards to military symbiosis, I see no reason why Canada's pacifist mentality should dictate my life choices.
I never said it should, just that the US does receive help from other countries in many ways. You're not a self-sustained nation. Not by a long shot.

duane1969

08-07-2012, 07:06 PM

Nothing. It has a lot to do, however, with your claim that no one has helped the US with their own security. That was a false statement.

Perhaps I should clarify because I sense a tangent here...

If my country is invaded by "whoever", I feel quite confident that the safety and security of my country and my family will rest as much if not more on the actions of an armed citizen nation than it will on the military support of England, France, Canada or any of the UN countries. In fact, a mass invasion by another country would be overwhelming for our own military which sports just under 1.5 million troops. By contrast, the 2nd Amendment has contributed to tens of millions of armed citizens.

If someone kicks in my door with intentions of doing harm to my wife or children, I am POSITIVE that the gun in my hand will be the deciding factor, not the protection of anyone in another COUNTY much less another country.

So if someone in another country dislikes me or disapproves of me taking full advantage of my right to keep and bear arms and my support of others having that right, I do not care.

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 07:18 PM

I understand that you do not care, nor should you. You just have a skewed view of the world, that's all. I fear it's indicative of most Amercians' thoughts. "No one helps us, we help everyone else" is just wrong.

So if you don't care what they think, that's fine, just realize that it may have far reaching consequences in the future, on a global scale.

habsheaven

08-07-2012, 08:53 PM

Perhaps I should clarify because I sense a tangent here...

If my country is invaded by "whoever", I feel quite confident that the safety and security of my country and my family will rest as much if not more on the actions of an armed citizen nation than it will on the military support of England, France, Canada or any of the UN countries. In fact, a mass invasion by another country would be overwhelming for our own military which sports just under 1.5 million troops. By contrast, the 2nd Amendment has contributed to tens of millions of armed citizens.

If someone kicks in my door with intentions of doing harm to my wife or children, I am POSITIVE that the gun in my hand will be the deciding factor, not the protection of anyone in another COUNTY much less another country.

So if someone in another country dislikes me or disapproves of me taking full advantage of my right to keep and bear arms and my support of others having that right, I do not care.

This has got to be the most uninformed post of the week.

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 09:14 PM

This has got to be the most uninformed post of the week.

The world already sees the US as gun nuts. Nothing will change that. Much of the world sees the US as...let's call it "less than educated". You and I know better, but remarks like that one can make you wonder.

shrewsbury

08-07-2012, 10:15 PM

strange so many come here or education

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 10:27 PM

strange so many come here or education

I'm not saying it's the truth. In fact, I believe I stated I know better. But like it or not, that's the stereotype of your nation's people. Most of that comes from people listening to statements like the one referenced.

INTIMADATOR2007

08-07-2012, 10:29 PM

Standing Ovation for you sir !

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 10:32 PM

And there it is again. You don't have to care what the rest of us think but that doesn't mean you have to prove the stereotype.

habsheaven

08-07-2012, 10:36 PM

strange so many come here or education

Yeah Jay, but they are not Americans coming for the education. lol

shrewsbury

08-07-2012, 10:36 PM

wickabee, I know. but it shows that ignorance goes beyond our borders

Wickabee

08-07-2012, 10:42 PM

It does, but the way Canadians are "polite" to everyone Americans are, well I won't say it outright.

Again, that's not something I believe, but it is an idea that exists globally. You're also fat, self-centered and self-righteous to the rest of the world. And again, that's not my belief.

shrewsbury

08-07-2012, 10:45 PM

here is another reason we won't give up our guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya2Kx9qSa_g

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBlelqDE1RI

and here is why we should have some better regulations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuufH8a-fjM

and another idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06iOo4KgNo

mrveggieman

08-08-2012, 09:57 AM

If I could add my two cents here is another perfect reason why citizens should be able to arm and defend themselves. Parker vs the Disctrict of Columbia. I had to write about this case in college. It is several years old but it is a perfect example. What happened was some armed thugs broke in those womans house, robbed and raped her. She lived in dc and it was illegal for her to own gun even though that law violated the 2nd amendment. (even though dc is the capital of the US they always seem to make up their own rules) Anyway she called the dc police and they never showed up. The court ruled that if you call the police and they never show up then too bad. So basically if you live in dc and you need police protection they have no legal obligation to protect you and you have no legal right to protect yourself? Wow. That is exactly why I left dc and moved to georgia.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/overview.html

duane1969

08-08-2012, 12:13 PM

This has got to be the most uninformed post of the week.

You are entitled to your opinion but what I know is this. If 1 million armed infantry from another country were to launch a land-based invasion of our country then it would be the armed citizens that prevent an overrun of our country.

- Our own military is less than 1.5 million people and are spread all over the globe, so getting them home and organzied would take days if not weeks. During that time an uninhibited infantry could take over entire states and even regions of the country.
- By the same measure, foreign support would take several days to mobilize and get here. Waiting on Britian or Germany to send support would result in thousands of miles of lost territory.

A land-based invasion would be stalled by the citizens of this country picking up their shotguns, rifles, sporting rifles and handguns and defending our land. Along with geographical issues, anyone wishing to invade our country knows that there is a 50 million strong citizen army that will load up and shoot back and they have to take that into account.

If I could add my two cents here is another perfect reason why citizens should be able to arm and defend themselves. Parker vs the Disctrict of Columbia. I had to write about this case in college. It is several years old but it is a perfect example. What happened was some armed thugs broke in those womans house, robbed and raped her. She lived in dc and it was illegal for her to own gun even though that law violated the 2nd amendment. (even though dc is the capital of the US they always seem to make up their own rules) Anyway she called the dc police and they never showed up. The court ruled that if you call the police and they never show up then too bad. So basically if you live in dc and you need police protection they have no legal obligation to protect you and you have no legal right to protect yourself? Wow. That is exactly why I left dc and moved to georgia.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/overview.html

That is appalling.

Rockman

08-08-2012, 12:23 PM

You are entitled to your opinion but what I know is this. If 1 million armed infantry from another country were to launch a land-based invasion of our country then it would be the armed citizens that prevent an overrun of our country.

- Our own military is less than 1.5 million people and are spread all over the globe, so getting them home and organzied would take days if not weeks. During that time an uninhibited infantry could take over entire states and even regions of the country.
- By the same measure, foreign support would take several days to mobilize and get here. Waiting on Britian or Germany to send support would result in thousands of miles of lost territory.

A land-based invasion would be stalled by the citizens of this country picking up their shotguns, rifles, sporting rifles and handguns and defending our land. Along with geographical issues, anyone wishing to invade our country knows that there is a 50 million strong citizen army that will load up and shoot back and they have to take that into account.

That is appalling.

If a 1 million man army from another country launched a land based attack it would be;

A) Extremely localized and there surprise wouldn't get them very far.
B) A sign our government left us out to dry.

There is no way in the 21st century with our heightened fear of attack that a one million man army could attack us and we would have no idea it was coming. We would know. It's an absolutely absurd hypothetical.

duane1969

08-08-2012, 12:30 PM

If a 1 million man army from another country launched a land based attack it would be;

A) Extremely localized and there surprise wouldn't get them very far.
B) A sign our government left us out to dry.

There is no way in the 21st century with our heightened fear of attack that a one million man army could attack us and we would have no idea it was coming. We would know. It's an absolutely absurd hypothetical.

Doesn't change the fact that if it happened that it would be the armed citizens that were the first line of defense.

And as absurd as you might think it is, Pearl Harbor was absurd, 9/11 was absurd...so much for that. You can do what you want, I choose to be the ant and not the grasshopper.

habsheaven

08-08-2012, 12:31 PM

Duane, maybe I am confusing you with someone else on here. I thought you knew more about the intricacies of war than most of us. Any invasion would not begin with just ground troops. It would have air and sea support. Citizens would be heavily outgunned by the ground forces as well. They would be disorganized and spread out. Were not talking about "Red Dawn" here. One Canadian division of infantry, or one squadron of fighter jets (as bad as ours are) would provide far more support than the armed citizens of all your northern states combined. But of course that is just my opinion, as silly as it sounds.

duane1969

08-08-2012, 01:45 PM

Duane, maybe I am confusing you with someone else on here. I thought you knew more about the intricacies of war than most of us. Any invasion would not begin with just ground troops. It would have air and sea support. Citizens would be heavily outgunned by the ground forces as well. They would be disorganized and spread out. Were not talking about "Red Dawn" here. One Canadian division of infantry, or one squadron of fighter jets (as bad as ours are) would provide far more support than the armed citizens of all your northern states combined. But of course that is just my opinion, as silly as it sounds.

No, you are correct, but it is ignorant to think that our smattering of troops that are scattered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Africa could be brought home quickly. The airstrikes would be done and their troops on the ground before our troops had even packed to head home.

Furthermore, any air strikes launched by a foreign enemy would target military installations and bases which would just further decimate their ability to retaliate.

I get it. The liberal ideal is to accept that the government will do everything to protect you while you do nothing to protect yourself. I am not a liberal. I do not buy into the concept that I should forfeit all of my rights and ignore my responsibility to my family to be prepared because the government will always protect me and do what is best for me. If you choose to take that approach, so be it, but do not presume that because there is plenty of sand around you that I will bury my head beside of yours.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
President Thomas Jefferson

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 01:50 PM

No, you are correct, but it is ignorant to think that our smattering of troops that are scattered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Africa could be brought home quickly. The airstrikes would be done and their troops on the ground before our troops had even packed to head home.

Furthermore, any air strikes launched by a foreign enemy would target military installations and bases which would just further decimate their ability to retaliate.

I get it. The liberal ideal is to accept that the government will do everything to protect you while you do nothing to protect yourself. I am not a liberal. I do not buy into the concept that I should forfeit all of my rights and ignore my responsibility to my family to be prepared because the government will always protect me and do what is best for me. If you choose to take that approach, so be it, but do not presume that because there is plenty of sand around you that I will bury my head beside of yours.

I am a liberal and that is absolute bunk

duane1969

08-08-2012, 01:52 PM

I am a liberal and that is absolute bunk

Yet you argue that the idea that the citizens would play key a role in the defense of their country is absurd.

Anytime I hear someone argue that citizen ownership of guns is unneeded and that the government is the true protector of us it is almost always a liberal. Rarely do conservatives buy into the concept that the government will protect us and that we don't need to be prepared to protect ourselves.

habsheaven

08-08-2012, 02:04 PM

You say you get it, and follow it up with a bunch of conservative rhetoric about liberals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get it.

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 02:06 PM

Yet you argue that the idea that the citizens would play key a role in the defense of their country is absurd.

Anytime I hear someone argue that citizen ownership of guns is unneeded and that the government is the true protector of us it is almost always a liberal. Rarely do conservatives buy into the concept that the government will protect us and that we don't need to be prepared to protect ourselves.

I've never said any such thing. I have no problem with gun ownership. Never have, never will (I grew up in a hunting town).

The idea that the citizens could defeat an attacking army is a little absurd. Protecting yourself against violent criminals? Absolutely. But your citizenry doesn't have the experience, training or flat out firepower (even with all your guns) to take out an experienced, trained and unified attack on the ground. I think you'd put up a decent fight, but you'd lose.

habsheaven

08-08-2012, 02:11 PM

Wickabee, you are giving a citizen army way too much credit. It would be a massacre of the grandest scale. Duane is living in a fantasy world that a lot of hard line conservatives live in.

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 02:15 PM

Wickabee, you are giving a citizen army way too much credit. It would be a massacre of the grandest scale. Duane is living in a fantasy world that a lot of hard line conservatives live in.

No, I have enough faith in Americans to band some militias together and do some damage. I should clarify though, it would end in a massacre. But, they would put up a decent fight at first.

mrveggieman

08-08-2012, 03:26 PM

I would have to side with duane. If I'm going to go out I'm going out with a fight. Also I don't rely on my gov't to protect me either. God is my protection but that's for a different discussion.

MattDMC

08-08-2012, 03:38 PM

I'm sorry but that video of the guy with the jammed gun blowing his hat off just made me laugh my behind off at how stupid he was.

I have and always will support gun ownership but do agree there needs to be restrictions involved.

IMO there need to be only two stipulations/restriction.
1.) theres no need for anyone to have assault riffles of any kind, hand guns hunting riffles and shot guns are fine but no assault riffles
2.) you can't buy a gun until you have passed some kind of both a standardized testing and a psyche test to show you are both smart enough and up there in the head enough to own and operate a gun.

just my .02 cents

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 03:40 PM

I would have to side with duane. If I'm going to go out I'm going out with a fight. Also I don't rely on my gov't to protect me either. God is my protection but that's for a different discussion.

But you're a liberal! You MUST expect the government to protect you. If you don't you can'tbe liberal. At least, that's what I got from Duane's post.

habsheaven

08-08-2012, 03:47 PM

Veggie's all over the board. When it comes to guns and abortion he is definitely a conservative.

mrveggieman

08-08-2012, 03:53 PM

Actually I consider myself more of the moderate or libertarian flavor. :winking0071:

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 04:00 PM

Phew, good. I don't know what I'd do if a liberal ever said guns weren't the devil!

Liberals hate the second amendment, and the rest of the constitution, so...

mrveggieman

08-08-2012, 04:13 PM

Liberals love the 1st amendment but want to appeal the 2nd amendment. Conservatives want to repeal the 1st amendment but live by the 2nd amendment. Libertarians want all of our constitutional rights.

Wickabee

08-08-2012, 04:38 PM

I was just looking at the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Let's break it down

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Tells me "When a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Just as it sounds.

So, as I read it, it says When a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, I see a lot of people talk about the second part of the amendment, the right to bear arms, but what does the first part about the militia mean to everyone?

shrewsbury

08-08-2012, 05:59 PM

veggie, what makes you think we are trying to repeal the 1st amendment?

mrveggieman

08-09-2012, 10:58 AM

veggie, what makes you think we are trying to repeal the 1st amendment?

Conservatives are genrally against the free exercise of any religion that is not christanity. They will not openly admit it but it is clear as day. They would be delighted if all religions except for their extreme form of christanity were outlawed. They also are against free speech against their extreme ways.

Conservatives are genrally against the free exercise of any religion that is not christanity. They will not openly admit it but it is clear as day. They would be delighted if all religions except for their extreme form of christanity were outlawed. They also are against free speech against their extreme ways.

dude, again with your mind reading. "they don't say it but i know that's what they want." give me a break man. you have nothing to actually back up your outrageous claims so you just say "i know what they really think"

also, what do you consider extreme forms of christianity?

mrveggieman

08-09-2012, 02:28 PM

dude, again with your mind reading. "they don't say it but i know that's what they want." give me a break man. you have nothing to actually back up your outrageous claims so you just say "i know what they really think"

also, what do you consider extreme forms of christianity?

Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Bryan Fisher, Benny Hinn are all examples of those who promote extreme christanity. Oh wait those men do not reflect the values of mainstream christanity and therefore it is unfair to link any of them to christanity because as we all know, no true christian would ever preach hatred and division. Right. :thumb:

shrewsbury

08-09-2012, 02:32 PM

right

Good Ole Jim

08-09-2012, 02:36 PM

Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Bryan Fisher, Benny Hinn are all examples of those who promote extreme christanity. Oh wait those men do not reflect the values of mainstream christanity and therefore it is unfair to link any of them to christanity because as we all know, no true christian would ever preach hatred and division. Right. :thumb:

And you then just assume that all Republicans are extreme Christians? I know plenty of Republicans that are atheists. Your examples of people who go with "extreme christianity" are irrelevant. I can name examples of extreme liberals too... there will always be extremes.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian per say, but to claim that they would be delighted by the banning of all religions besides that is ludicrous. I'm not even going to begin the "free speech" claim. I'm sorry, but your post has absolutely no backing to it. I'm all for a good debate, but there's nothing to debate with claims that are supported with no proof besides your own opinion.

Wickabee

08-09-2012, 02:45 PM

I wouldn't call myself a Christian per say, but to claim that they would be delighted by the banning of all religions besides that is ludicrous. I'm not even going to begin the "free speech" claim. I'm sorry, but your post has absolutely no backing to it. I'm all for a good debate, but there's nothing to debate with claims that are supported with no proof besides your own opinion.

I disagree. I think every religion would be happy to see every other religion gone...in theory anyway.

Good Ole Jim

08-09-2012, 03:15 PM

I disagree. I think every religion would be happy to see every other religion gone...in theory anyway.

I can see why you feel that way, but I don't think that's as concrete as everyone makes it out to be. I think extremists from religions may say that, but I don't think a true person to a religion would spite another person based on what name they call God.

Wickabee

08-09-2012, 03:18 PM

I can see why you feel that way, but I don't think that's as concrete as everyone makes it out to be. I think extremists from religions may say that, but I don't think a true person to a religion would spite another person based on what name they call God.

True. I was talking more of the teachings. If each religion considers itself the true religion, then it would stand to reason that an inherent part of the belief set is a want to end all other religions, which doesn't require violence or spite per se. Of course, I also think every religion kind of needs every other religion, just to stay relevant and have an enemy, for lack of a better word.

mrveggieman

08-09-2012, 03:25 PM

I can see why you feel that way, but I don't think that's as concrete as everyone makes it out to be. I think extremists from religions may say that, but I don't think a true person to a religion would spite another person based on what name they call God.

Have you read all of my posts? There are always extremists, Bryan Fischer happens to be one of them. I've read his bull spit infested stuff for a long time. These extremists are irrelevant to an entire mass of people in my opinion.